7th Circuit Threatens to Ban Attorney from Practicing Before it

The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, issued an order to show cause why Walter Maksym, an Illionois attorney who is also one of the attorneys for Drew Peterson, should continue to be allowed to practice law before the Court.

The order was issued following the laborious process of back and forth correspondence that began in 2007. After several attempts resulting in a failure to state an intelligible claim, the district court eventually denied Maksym's motion for leave to amend his second complaint. His appeal of this denial is what was affirmed by the 7th Circuit, which stated:

"where the lack of organization and basic coherence renders a complaint too confusing to determine the facts that constitute the alleged wrongful conduct, dismissal is an appropriate remedy."

What a 345 word long sentence looks like

Among his butchering of the English language was this 341 word-one sentence gem, inserted in the Court's footnotes:

"That pursuant to the RICO Act, Defendants extortive activities constituted a Pattern of Racketeering activity and conspiracy involving violations of 1956(a)(1)(B)(ii), and 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (wire fraud—the use of interstate mail or wire facilities, here telephone and facsimile transmissions), or the causing of any of those things promoting unlawful activity), and 18 U.S.C. § 1951 (interference with commerce and extortion by using and threatening to use legitimate governmental powers to obtain an illegitimate objectives under color of official right by wrongful plan, extortion, intimidation and threat of force and/or other unlawful consequence and through fear and misuse of there office to obstruct, hinder, interfere with, and/or affect commerce and the use and enjoyment of Plaintiffs’ property and obtaining, as uniformed public officials payment for unwanted services to which they were not entitled by law, attempting to conceal from the United States of America their true and correct income and the nature thereof so obtained from Plaintiffs in order to attempt to evade paying lawful taxes thereon in violation of 26 U.S. § 7201, et. seq., thereby using the governmental powers with which they have been entrusted to gain personal or illegitimate rewards and payments which they knew or should have known were made and/or obtained in return for the colorable official acts as aforesaid, and knowing that the property involved in a financial transaction represents the proceeds of some form of unlawful activity, conducts or attempts to conduct such a financial transaction which in fact involves the proceeds of specified unlawful activity with the intent to promote the carrying on of specified unlawful activity all in violation of RICO and the other laws set forth herein, inter alia, as well as acts chargeable under any of the following provisions of the laws of the State of Illinois 720 ILCS 5/33-3(d) (official misconduct); 720 ILCS 5/1211 (criminal home invasion); 720 ILCS 5/19-4 (criminal trespass to a residence) 720 ILCS 5/19-4); (theft 720 ILCS 5/16 (a)(1)&(2) by knowingly obtaining or exerting unauthorized and/or through threat control over Plaintiff’s property as aforesaid."

If they weren't already on notice, attorneys now know for certain that the judiciary will not attempt to "fish a gold coin out of a bucket of mud," i.e. attempt to determine what the complaint alleges if it does not follow the requirements to state it plainly and straightforwardly.